Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV15798, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15798    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendant Panditha Sarathchandra (Defendant) moves to deem admitted matters in the Requests for Admissions, Set One served on Plaintiff Farid Yadegar. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition, attaching responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant asserts that he served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Plaintiff on March 6, 2024. (Mendoza Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff appears to have served untimely responses. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory but the amount requested is excessive in light of the nature of the motion and the lack of an opposition. Accordingly, the Court awards monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $330 (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Request for Admissions, Set One, is denied.  

The Court further orders monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $330.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.